Search

This article argues that Book I of the Politics represents Aristotle's critique of Plato's Eleatic Stranger on the specific character of political rule and the knowledge required for political rule, and that this critique produces a different understanding of the proper division of regimes and the relationship between political theory and practice. These differences can be traced to a more fundamental disagreement about nature: Aristotle sees nature as generally hospitable to human life and argues that the natural end or goal of political association is not mere life but the good life, while the Eleatic perceives nature as hostile and proposes a minimalist politics, aimed primarily at preserving life. Although the Eleatic's view of nature might appear to be closer to and more compatible with modern political thought, the conception of nature Aristotle presents in his Politics offers richer possibilities for political theory and political life.